Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1097 (RAJ)

Madho Singh v. Vinod Kumar

2014-05-07

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Madho Singh against the judgment dated 23.10.1999 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in M.A.C. No. 131/1993 whereby the claim application filed by the appellant for the damage caused to his tractor bearing registration No. RRQ 9364 in a road accident, was rejected with the cost of Rs. 1000/-. 2. Facts in brief are that the claimant filed the claim application before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the facts set out in the application, on 10.4.1993 the appellant's tractor bearing registration No. RRQ 9364 being driven by his driver Kundan Singh was proceeding from Sirohi to Ambeshwar Temple. It is alleged that a jeep bearing registration No. RJ 30.C.0048 being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by its driver Joonamchand, came from the opposite direction and collided with the tractor causing extensive damage to the tractor. The jeep was in ownership and control of Vinod Kumar at the time of the accident. Devi Lal the non-claimant No. 2 was the original owner thereof and the same was insured with the respondent No. 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. The non-claimants No. 1 and 2 i.e. the owners of the jeep in question did lot appear before the Tribunal despite service of summons. The respondent No. 3 Insurance Company filed a written statement to the claim application alleging [hat the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the driver if the appellant's tractor. It was specifically pleaded that the Police filed a charge-sheet against Kundan Singh the appellant's driver after investigation of the F.I.R. registered in relation to the accident. It was also submitted that the jeep driver was not having a valid driving licence on the date of the accident and that the maximum liability of the Insurance Company was to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- in terms of the insurance policy. 4. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 1. As to whether the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. RJ 30.C.0048 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and collided with the tractor bearing registration No. RRQ 9364 owned by the appellant and caused damage to it? 2. As to whether the appellant was entitled to the compensation as per the claim application? 3. As to whether the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. RJ 30.C.0048 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and collided with the tractor bearing registration No. RRQ 9364 owned by the appellant and caused damage to it? 2. As to whether the appellant was entitled to the compensation as per the claim application? 3. As to whether the Insurance Company was entitled to be exonerated in view of its defence that the jeep driver was not holding an appropriate licence for driving the jeep? 4. As to whether the Insurance Company could be saddled with liability in excess of Rs. 6,000/- in view of the conditions of the insurance policy? 5. The Tribunal whilst deciding the issue No. 1 regarding the rash and negligent driving, held that the appellant's driver Kundan Singh drove the tractor rashly and negligently and was responsible for causing the accident. It was noticed that Kundan Singh in his examination before the Tribunal admitted that he was not having licence to drive the tractor. Thus, the Tribunal held that from the facts available on record, the appellant failed to prove that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. The Tribunal also decided the issue No. 2 regarding the quantum of compensation against the appellant. The issue No. 3 was not pressed by the respondent Insurance Company. The issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the claim application was rejected. Hence, this appeal. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, Madho Singh the owner of the tractor expired and accordingly, his legal representatives were permitted to be taken on record for pursuing the appeal. 7. Shri J. Gehlot learned Counsel appearing for the appellants claimants vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal committed grave error on facts in rejecting the claim application filed by the claimant. He submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the claimant's driver having driven the tractor rashly and negligently is contrary to the material available on record. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the appeal should be accepted. 8. Per contra, Shri Jagdish Vyas learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the burden of proving that the negligence of the jeep driver was the cause of the accident was on the claimant. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the appeal should be accepted. 8. Per contra, Shri Jagdish Vyas learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submitted that the burden of proving that the negligence of the jeep driver was the cause of the accident was on the claimant. The claimant failed to discharge the said burden and therefore, the claim application was rightly rejected. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surender Kumar Arora & Anr. v. Dr. Manoj Bislab Ors. reported in 2012 RAR SC 158 and submitted that the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim application and that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 9. I have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment. 10. The burden of proving a fact is normally on the party, who alleges the same. Thus, the burden was on the claimant Madho Singh to prove that the driver of the jeep bearing registration No. RJ 30.C.0048 drove his vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. He examined Kundan Singh the tractor driver, in order to prove this fact. Kundan Singh was admittedly not having any licence to drive the tractor and admittedly, the Police filed a charge-sheet against him for causing the accident by rashly and negligently driving. These facts in themselves are sufficient to convince this Court that it was Kundan Singh and none else who drove the tractor rashly and negligently and caused the accident Kundan Singh is a partisan witness and for obvious reasons, he tried to shift the blame of rash and negligent driving on the jeep driver. His testimony is totally unreliable. Three occupants of the jeep including its driver expired in the accident. The appellant could have proved the site inspection plan prepared by the Police in order to prove that the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the jeep was the cause of the accident. Though the other documents of the charge-sheet were filed on record but conveniently enough, the appellant chose not to file the site inspection plan with these documents. This clearly shows that the appellant did not approach the Tribunal with clean hands and tried to conceal material facts. Though the other documents of the charge-sheet were filed on record but conveniently enough, the appellant chose not to file the site inspection plan with these documents. This clearly shows that the appellant did not approach the Tribunal with clean hands and tried to conceal material facts. The judgment cited by the Shri Jagdish Vyas learned Counsel for the Insurance Company in the case of Surender Kumar Arora (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the claimant's driver drove the tractor rashly and negligently and caused the accident is just and proper and based on an appropriate appreciation of evidence. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal while rejecting the claim application do not call for any interference by this Court.The appeal thus being without any merit is hereby rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******